Key Findings

Six findings emerge consistently across all participant groups in this study.

Six findings emerge consistently across all participant groups in this study. They hold across funding outcome, national background, sector, and stage of entrepreneurial development. Together they paint a coherent and actionable picture of what #SheFUND actually does, for whom, and how.

1.1 Community as enabling infrastructure

The most consistent finding across the interviews is that community is not a peripheral feature of #SheDIDIT’s work. It is the foundation that makes the rest of the intervention effective.

Participants repeatedly describe #SheDIDIT not only as an organization that offers training, coaching, or access to finance, but as a space in which they feel understood, recognized, and taken seriously as migrant women entrepreneurs.

“I was rebuilding myself from scratch. Professionally, personally. All I was searching for was the right people. People I could trust. #SheDIDIT was foundational to my business.”

It was often highlighted how many entrepreneurship support programs provide technical assistance bur fewer create an environment in which participants feel that their specific social position, as women, migrants, founders, mothers, newcomers, racialized entrepreneurs, or non-native speakers, is seen as part of the entrepreneurial journey rather than treated as an obstacle to be overcome individually.

One participant captured this tension when reflecting on the difficulty of balancing entrepreneurship and care responsibilities:

“I also have to find the balance between being a mama and finding time for myself. In the last five years that didn’t happen too much.”

For these reasons, community emerges as #SheDIDIT’s most powerful differentiator. It is not simply an addition to the program. It is a mechanism of trust formation. Participants are more willing to share doubts, disclose uncertainty, ask basic questions, receive feedback, and expose unfinished ideas because the environment is perceived as safe and not judgmental. This matters because early-stage entrepreneurship is rarely experienced as a purely technical process. It is also emotional, relational, and identity based. Women are not only learning how to structure a business plan or prepare a pitch. They are also learning how to see themselves as entrepreneurs, how to speak with confidence about their work, and how to claim legitimacy in spaces where they may not have previously felt entitled to belong.

“That feeling of not being alone at the top. It was very nice to have that help.”

1.2 Trust as a mechanism of participation

Community function strengthens the effectiveness of coaching. Coaching is not received as business advice delivered from above, but as support embedded in a relationship of recognition. Participants are therefore more likely to interpret feedback as constructive rather than discouraging, and more likely to translate it into action. In this sense, community improves the credibility of the technical components of the program. It makes business development support feel accessible, relevant, and personally meaningful. The same applies to the pitch process. The public act of presenting a business idea becomes less intimidating when it is situated within a community that has already helped participants rehearse, refine, and believe in their entrepreneurial narrative.

Peer ties were also described as an important part of this process:

“…with time, we just really became like, sort of buddies… we would check on each other.”

Another participant similarly emphasized the emotional value of being part of a shared space:

“It always felt so good to be understood, shared about our worries and getting also so much support and so much love from the community.”

1.3 Community reframes the funding decision

Community changes the meaning of the funding decision:

For funded entrepreneurs, receiving support through #SheFUND is experienced not only as access to capital, but as a signal of trust and validation from a community that understands their journey.

For non-funded participants, community made rejection more accepted and understood. Not being selected is perceived as disappointing, but when the decision is embedded in a broader support system, it becomes interpreted as a moment of redirection rather than as a final judgement on entrepreneurial worth.

On this matter, one of the entrepreneurs, even after a negative funding outcome, reinforced her perception of the value of the community saying:

“It also helped me to get resources to network with other people.”

This is one of the most important findings of the study. The value of #SheFUND is not tied only to the loan. It is produced through the whole process and community is what allows that process to remain valuable even when the financial outcome is negative.

This finding has important implications for how #SheDIDIT understands and communicates its impact. Community is often difficult to quantify and is therefore at risk of being treated as secondary to more visible outputs, such as number of applicants, loans disbursed, coaching hours, or businesses funded. Yet the interviews suggest that community is the infrastructure through which these outputs become meaningful. Without community, coaching would likely become more transactional, pitching more intimidating, feedback more fragile, and non selection more discouraging. Community is therefore not a “soft” outcome. It is a productive asset that enables capability development, confidence building, identity formation, and continued engagement.

1.4 Strategic Implications

Strategically, this means that #SheDIDIT should treat community as a core program component rather than as an informal by product of its work. The community function should be deliberately designed, funded, staffed, and measured. This could include structured peer interaction before and after the pitch, alumni engagement, facilitated spaces for non funded applicants, founder circles, peer mentoring, and community based follow up after the funding decision. It also means that funders should be encouraged to recognize community building as part of the intervention model, not as an administrative or communication activity.

The broader implication is that #SheDIDIT occupies a distinctive position in Belgium’s entrepreneurial support landscape. Its uniqueness does not lie only in serving migrant women entrepreneurs, nor only in offering interest free loans through #SheFUND. Its distinctive value lies in combining financial access with a community that produces recognition, trust, and belonging. This combination is difficult to replicate because it depends on relational credibility, lived experience, and sustained engagement with the target community. Community is therefore both #SheDIDIT’s most defensible differentiator and its most underleveraged strategic asset.

2.1 The relevance of soft skills

This finding also concerns the central role of soft skills in the #SheFUND coaching model. The coaching program provides substantive technical content, including business planning, financial modelling, pricing strategy, customer definition, and the business model canvas. Participants recognize the value of these tools and often refer to them as useful for structuring their ideas, clarifying their business model, and preparing for the pitch. However, when asked what changed most through their participation, most participants do not first refer to a worksheet, a financial template, or a specific business planning tool. They refer instead to confidence, clarity, self-belief, encouragement, and the feeling of being listened by their coach without judgement.

“Making a financial plan, you can learn that from tutorials. The most valuable thing is identifying when someone is struggling with self-confidence and helping them make the mental click.”

This does not mean that technical skills are irrelevant. Rather, the interviews suggest that technical skills become even more meaningful when they are delivered through a relational and psychologically safe process.

Confidence development builds entrepreneurial legitimacy

Many participants entered the program with ideas, experience, creativity, or sector specific expertise, but lacked the confidence to translate these resources into a coherent entrepreneurial narrative. For them, the challenge was not only to learn business language, but to feel entitled to use it. Coaching therefore worked not simply as knowledge transfer, but as a process through which women were helped to organize their ideas, name their value, and present themselves as legitimate entrepreneurs.

One participant described the coach as the missing link between her existing capacity and her ability to act on it:

“I knew that I had the capacity, I had the knowledge… I just needed this bridge, and that was what my business coach gave to me.”

“I’m actually executing what my business coach told me, and it works. I am earning money from that.”

Soft skills as practical entrepreneurial capabilities

In this sense, soft skills should not be understood as secondary to technical skills. In the context of early-stage migrant women entrepreneurship, they are often the condition that allows technical skills to be used. Confidence affects whether a participant asks questions, attends events, approaches partners, speaks to customers, applies for funding, or stands in front of a jury. Communication skills affect whether she can explain her project convincingly. Emotional resilience affects whether she continues after a setback. Self presentation affects whether her business is perceived as credible by external audiences. These are not marginal outcomes. They are practical entrepreneurial capabilities.

The interviews show that #SheFUND’s strongest contribution often lies in this less visible domain. Participants describe coaches who listened carefully, created space for doubt, and helped them transform uncertainty into action. They describe moments of recognition in which their business idea became more concrete because someone else treated it as serious and worth developing. These experiences may appear intangible, but they have concrete effects on how participants move through the entrepreneurial process.

One participant summarized this clearly:

“What I appreciated the most was the mental support, the psychological support. I was kind of lost. Just having a coach that could listen to me and reassure me.. that’s what I appreciated the most.”

This finding is especially important because migrant women entrepreneurs may face barriers that are not only financial or technical. They may also face limited networks, unfamiliarity with the local business environment, language insecurity, lack of institutional confidence, discrimination, care responsibilities, or previous experiences of not being taken seriously. In this context, providing technical content alone is unlikely to be sufficient. A business model canvas can help structure an idea, but it cannot by itself overcome the hesitation to claim entrepreneurial legitimacy. A financial model can support planning, but it does not automatically produce the confidence to negotiate, pitch, or ask for investment. #SheDIDIT’s value lies in combining these technical tools with the relational conditions that allow participants to internalize and use them.

“The most valuable thing… they make us feel we are not alone and everything is possible.”

Why Soft Skills Must Be Named and Measured

The program therefore produces a form of impact that is easy to underestimate because it is not always immediately visible in conventional monitoring indicators. Confidence, voice, clarity, and resilience may not appear as direct business outputs, but they are part of the infrastructure of entrepreneurial action. They shape whether participants continue developing their projects, whether they interpret setbacks as failure or learning, and whether they remain connected to support networks after the program ends. For funded participants, these soft skill gains can strengthen their ability to use financial support effectively. For non funded participants, they can determine whether non selection becomes discouragement or redirection.

Strategically, this suggests that #SheDIDIT should name, measure, and communicate soft skills as core program outcomes. They should not be presented as indirect benefits or emotional side effects of the program. They are part of what the program is designed to produce. The language of “soft skills” may itself understate their importance. What the program builds is entrepreneurial agency: the ability to speak, decide, persist, ask, present, adapt, and act with greater confidence. In practical terms, #SheDIDIT’s product is not only better business plans. It is women who are more able to inhabit the role of entrepreneur.

2.5 Translating vision into concrete business decisions

One reason the journey is transformative is that participants experience coaching as encouraging, supportive, and not judgmental. Coaches create a space in which women feel understood and able to express uncertainty without fear of being dismissed. This emotional safety is not separate from business development. It is what allows participants to ask questions, acknowledge weaknesses, and receive advice constructively.

As one participant explained:

“All coaches are very encouraging, very supporting. It always felt so good to be understood.”

This sense of being understood is especially important for migrant women entrepreneurs, whose business journeys are often shaped by language barriers, unfamiliar institutions, care responsibilities, and previous experiences of not being taken seriously. In this context, encouragement is not simply emotional support. It is a condition for participation and learning.

The interviews also show that coaching helps participants move from broad ambition to practical decision making. The journey matters because it forces entrepreneurs to clarify what they offer, who they serve, how they price, how they communicate, and how they present their business to others.

One participant described this movement from strategic clarity to implementation:

“She literally helped me through the macro level and the micro level, like how I could see myself from helicopter view and how this translated into my brochure, my services, how could I name them, my prices. So it was exactly what I needed.”

This quote captures one of the strongest mechanisms of the coaching journey. Participants are not only encouraged to believe in their idea. They are helped to turn that idea into decisions. The process links identity, strategy, and execution. It allows entrepreneurs to see the business as a whole, while also working through the details that make the business operational.

2.6 The journey builds discipline and accountability

Another reason the journey teaches more than the outcome is that it introduces structure and accountability. Some participants had already been in business for some time, but had not yet developed systematic routines around budgeting, pricing, planning, or follow up. Coaching helped them formalize these practices.

As one participant explained:

“It was the first time ever when she asked me that I did budgeting… even if I was in business for two years, I never did that properly.”

The value here lies not only in learning a technical skill, but in being brought into a more disciplined way of running a business. The coaching journey helps participants move from informal entrepreneurial activity toward more structured entrepreneurial practice.

Accountability was also described as a key feature of the process. Coaches followed up, noticed when progress slowed, and helped participants stay focused without making them feel judged.

As one participant recalled:

“The coaches, like, oh, you haven’t booked this this month. What happened?…gently.”

Another participant explained:

“I have really struggled to… be consistent, so it’s really helped me… to keep me focused on my goal.”

This form of accountability is effective because it is supportive rather than punitive. It helps participants remain connected to their goals while recognizing the complexity of their lives. For many women, especially those balancing business with family, work, migration, or administrative responsibilities, this gentle accountability is a critical part of the learning process.

2.7 Relatable coaches make the journey more credible

The interviews suggest that the journey is also effective because coaches are perceived as relatable and credible. Participants valued coaches who were entrepreneurs themselves, who understood the practical realities of building a business, and who could offer examples from their own experience. Where possible, matching by sector or language further increased the relevance of support.

This relatability makes coaching feel less abstract and more actionable. Advice is not received as generic instruction, but as guidance from someone who understands what it means to build, adapt, price, communicate, and sustain a business. This strengthens trust and makes participants more likely to act on the feedback they receive.

This same dynamic extends beyond the funded cohort: the impact of #SheFUND is wider than its funded cohort. While the funding decision is a central moment in the program journey, it does not determine whether participants derive value from the process. Across the interviews, both funded and non funded participants described concrete gains from coaching, application preparation, and pitching. These gains included greater clarity about the business model, stronger confidence in presenting the project, improved financial understanding, better pricing decisions, and a more structured sense of what the next stage of business development should look like.

“…for sure, it brings me a lot of courage… when somebody… appreciates you what are you doing.”

The founder echoes the mechanism saying:

“The most important thing is the confidence that you get when people give you money, or invest time and effort in you.”

This finding is important because it challenges a narrow interpretation of #SheFUND as a program whose impact can be assessed only through the entrepreneurs who receive loans. The interviews suggest that value is generated throughout the process, not only at the point of disbursement. Participants who were not selected for funding still passed through a structured entrepreneurial development journey. They refined their ideas, received coaching, learned to describe their business more clearly, and in some cases continued implementing the plan developed during the program. The program therefore produces a broader set of outcomes than the binary distinction between funded and not funded can capture.

For non funded participants, the process often produced practical and persistent learning. Several continued running their businesses after the program, sought alternative sources of funding, or applied lessons from coaching to improve their offer, pricing, customer targeting, or operational model. One non funded participant, for example, launched an administrative support consultancy and was generating revenue within a year of completing #SheMeansBusiness, following the plan developed with her coach. This example illustrates a wider pattern in the data: non selection did not necessarily mean that the program had failed to generate entrepreneurial progress. In some cases, the program helped participants move from an early idea to concrete business activity, even without financial support.

This illustrates what #SheFUND actually produces. #SheFUND does not only distribute loans. It builds entrepreneurial readiness across a wider group of women. Some receive funding immediately; others leave with clearer plans, stronger capabilities, and greater confidence to continue. Both outcomes matter. #SheFUND has the ability to generate value before, beyond, and independently of the loan decision.

2.8 Strategic Implications

Strategically, this finding suggests that #SheDIDIT should communicate #SheFUND not only as a funding opportunity, but as a structured entrepreneurial learning journey. The program’s value is not limited to who receives capital. It is also produced through the preparation, coaching, accountability, feedback, and confidence building that participants experience along the way.

This has three main implications. First, the journey itself should be intentionally designed as an impact pathway. Each stage of the process should have a clear learning function: application as self reflection, coaching as clarification and accountability, pitching as confidence building, feedback as redirection, and follow up as continued engagement. This would allow #SheDIDIT to show that the program creates value across the full applicant pool, not only among funded entrepreneurs.

Second, #SheDIDIT should measure the outcomes produced during the journey. These could include increased confidence, clearer pricing, improved budgeting practices, stronger business communication, greater consistency, and better ability to explain the business model. These indicators would help capture the forms of progress that participants describe as transformative but that are often missed by conventional metrics focused only on loans disbursed, businesses funded, or revenue growth.

Third, the coaching model should remain relational and practice based. The interviews suggest that coaching works because it combines encouragement, accountability, sector relevant advice, and lived entrepreneurial experience. This means that coach selection and matching are strategic design choices. Coaches should not only have technical expertise, but also the ability to create trust, recognize uncertainty, and translate broad business ideas into concrete decisions.

3.1 The Pitching Experience

Building on the findings regarding the relevance of the coaching experience, the interviews also explored participants’ subsequent pitching journey. This stage emerged as an important moment of consolidation, where the learning developed through coaching and application preparation was translated into a public presentation of the business idea.

The key mechanism is that coaching and application preparation create transferable entrepreneurial capabilities. Participants do not leave the process only with the experience of having pitched. They leave with tools, language, and confidence that can be used in other entrepreneurial settings. A clearer business plan can support future funding applications. A stronger pitch can be adapted for conversations with customers, partners, or investors. Better financial understanding can inform pricing and planning decisions. Greater confidence can shape whether participants continue to pursue the business after rejection. These outcomes may be less visible than a loan, but they are highly consequential for entrepreneurial development.

This finding also reframes the meaning of the pitch. The pitch should not be understood only as a selection instrument used to allocate funding. It is also a learning event. For many participants, preparing for and delivering the pitch creates a moment of discipline, synthesis, and public validation. It requires them to translate their business into a concise, persuasive, and externally legible narrative. That experience has value even when the final decision is negative.

In this sense, the pitch is not merely the end of the application process. It is a developmental threshold. It marks the moment when a business idea moves from private aspiration or coaching discussion into a public entrepreneurial claim. Participants are asked to explain not only what they want to do, but why it matters, who it serves, how it will work, and why they are the right person to take it forward. This process strengthens both the business proposition and the entrepreneur’s ability to inhabit the role of founder.

The value of the pitching experience therefore lies in its dual function. It allows #SheFUND to assess which businesses are ready for financial support, but it also allows participants to test, refine, and communicate their entrepreneurial identity. Even when the outcome is not funding, the process can leave participants with a stronger narrative, a clearer sense of direction, and a more concrete understanding of what is needed to move forward.

As explained by most non-funded entrepreneurs, it is a capability building exercise in itself:

“I pitched, and the reaction was... wonderful... how well it really clicked with me and how they loved the product.”

“Before then I was pitching mostly to male audiences and it just did not relate so well. At this event, the vibe was amazing. The audience was wonderful.”

At the same time, the persistence of these gains depends heavily on how the post decision phase is managed. For funded participants, the outcome provides validation, resources, and momentum. For non-funded participants, the continuation of impact depends on whether rejection is accompanied by useful feedback, emotional containment, and clear next steps. When non selection is communicated constructively, it can become a moment of redirection. When it is communicated weakly or without sufficient explanation, it risks undermining the confidence built during the earlier stages of the program. The fact that non funded participants can benefit from the process does not mean that the outcome is emotionally neutral. It means that the program has the potential to turn non selection into learning, but only if the feedback architecture is strong.

3.2 Feedback as a Design Variable

A third finding concerns the role of feedback after the pitch. For non funded applicants, the feedback moment is one of the most important points in the entire #SheFUND journey. It is the moment when the program can either consolidate the confidence, clarity, and entrepreneurial readiness built during coaching, or risk weakening them. Because participants invest considerable emotional and practical effort in preparing their application and pitch, the way the outcome is communicated matters greatly. The funding decision is not experienced only as an administrative result. It is interpreted as a signal about the value, credibility, and future potential of the entrepreneurial project.

For this reason, feedback quality should be understood as a central program design variable, not as a minor operational step. When feedback is clear, substantive, and delivered with care, non selection can become a productive moment of redirection.

“A no doesn’t mean that it’s not good. It just means that maybe... this is not the right place for you.”

It can help participants understand what was strong in their proposal, what needs further development, and what concrete steps they might take next. In this form, feedback extends the learning journey beyond the pitch. It transforms the funding decision into an opportunity for continued business development.

This is particularly important because #SheFUND already creates value before the outcome is known. Through coaching, application preparation, and pitching, participants develop business language, confidence, financial understanding, and a clearer entrepreneurial narrative. High quality feedback can protect these gains by helping participants interpret non selection as part of a longer entrepreneurial trajectory rather than as a final judgement. In other words, the feedback stage is where #SheDIDIT can ensure that the empowerment generated during the earlier phases is sustained after the decision.

The interviews suggest that participants value feedback most when it is specific, actionable, and connected to the criteria used in the selection process.

Those who actively asked and received feedback, particularly among non-funded entrepreneurs, highlighted its value along the following dimensions:

“I was able to present the pitch. And she told me what could be improved, and what was good already, which I really appreciate.”

“I took consideration of some of the points and have improved it.”

“it was an interesting experience… to get some feedback on me, on what she saw as positive points, and on which one where the points of improvement… it was all done in such a gentle manner.”

“I was reflecting a lot after the pitch, and I was really grateful what we heard from the people” — and on diverse feedback: “that’s the most valuable part.”

“the goal is just to present… get some useful feedback, so doesn’t matter if it’s too bad or good.”

“feedback is gold.”

Non funded applicants need to understand why the proposal was not selected, whether the issue concerned financial readiness, market validation, pricing, feasibility, repayment capacity, pitch clarity, or fit with the fund. They also benefit from knowing what they should do next: revise the business model, test the market further, strengthen financial projections, seek a different type of financing, or return in a future edition.

“I expected the jury to already know our businesses... I was a little bit disappointed... the feedback... was quite light.”

“I think I did not receive a systematic feedback about the pitch. I think I would, if I asked for it. Maybe I should have.”

“I didn’t get any feedback… I would like to hear like this went well or didn’t go well, or you should say more about that or that.”

This does not require feedback to be lengthy or resource intensive. What matters is that it is consistent, structured, and aligned with the program’s developmental purpose. A simple feedback template could distinguish between strengths, areas for improvement, jury concerns, and recommended next steps. This would help ensure that all applicants receive comparable guidance while still allowing room for personalisation. It would also reduce the emotional ambiguity of non selection by making the decision easier to understand and easier to act on.

Seen in this way, improving feedback is a high impact opportunity to strengthen what #SheDIDIT already does well. The organization has built a process that helps women develop confidence, articulate their ideas, and present themselves publicly as entrepreneurs. The feedback stage is the point at which this value can be carried forward, especially for those who do not receive funding. Strengthening this stage would help ensure that non funded participants remain connected, motivated, and equipped with a clearer pathway for continuation.

3.3 Strategic Implications

This finding also has strategic implications for impact measurement. If non funded participants are considered part of the program’s impact population, then feedback becomes one of the main tools through which that impact is sustained. A strong feedback process can increase the likelihood that participants continue their business, apply for alternative funding, return to #SheDIDIT, or remain active in the community. It can also support #SheDIDIT’s credibility as a learning centred and care centred entrepreneurial ecosystem.

The main recommendation is therefore to formalize feedback as a core component of the #SheFUND journey. Feedback should be timely, criteria based, constructive, and oriented toward next steps. It should recognise the effort participants have invested, preserve the confidence built through coaching, and provide enough practical guidance to help them move forward. In doing so, #SheDIDIT can turn non selection into a more clearly supported moment of entrepreneurial redirection and maximise the developmental value of the entire program.

“I think my numbers were missing. I could have shown more” and “it was still a very nice experience… to get the feedback, it will be useful for my future ones, hopefully.”

Some suggestions on how to improve were also shared:

“Maybe it would be good to meet one more time, or to have a like sort of results session where maybe we could hear that kind of feedback… I imagine contestants who didn’t win that they could hear why.”

Broadly, this has direct implications for how #SheDIDIT reports and measures success. If impact reporting focuses only on funded entrepreneurs, the organization risks systematically undercounting its own value creation. The funded cohort captures only one part of the program’s effect. A wider impact framework should also track outcomes among non-funded applicants and coaching participants, including business continuation, alternative funding applications, revenue generation, improved business model clarity, pitch reuse, confidence gains, and continued engagement with the #SheDIDIT community.

4.1 From Readiness to Execution: The Role of the Loan

This finding emerged directly from the three funded entrepreneurs interviewed for this study. Each described a point at which the business could not move forward without capital committed upfront, regardless of how well the plan had been prepared.

For product-based entrepreneurs, the first barrier is often not demand, motivation, or strategic clarity. It is the fact that suppliers and manufacturers require minimum order quantities, production commitments, samples, packaging materials, testing, or equipment before the business can begin selling. These costs cannot always be reduced gradually or paid for incrementally. A founder may know exactly what needs to be done, but still be unable to proceed because the required investment comes before revenue.

One participant explained why suppliers leave no room for gradual payment:

“You get some quotas of minimum orders that you have to make, and you also have to create samples and you have to do testing... If you don’t have the money, the fund, then it’s not possible... you need to have that money upfront once you start the process so you can advance. So if you don’t have that, then it stops there.”

This quote shows that the loan addresses a threshold problem. The issue is not a lack of preparation, but the indivisibility of certain business costs. A minimum production run cannot be purchased one unit at a time. Samples and testing must happen before market entry. Packaging must often be ordered in bulk. Without capital at this stage, the business does not merely grow more slowly; it may not be able to start operating at all.

Another described the same dynamic in the context of equipment and packaging:

“I bought a vacuum machine... a label machine... I also ordered ten thousand stickers for the jars. Those things were never money you have lying around when you are a complete person with a house, bills, and kids to pay for.”

This example highlights another important dimension of the loan: it reduces the gap between entrepreneurial ambition and personal financial reality. Many early-stage founders are not only managing a business idea, but also household responsibilities, rent, bills, childcare, and other everyday expenses. For these entrepreneurs, even relatively modest business investments can be difficult to absorb personally. The loan therefore creates room for business investment without requiring founders to compromise household stability.

For a third entrepreneur, the loan was valuable because it replaced a more expensive or less accessible financing route:

“That’s something I would have to take a loan elsewhere. I can pay it with this kind of funds.”

Here, the value of #SheFUND lies not only in access to finance, but in the quality and suitability of that finance. Without the programme, the entrepreneur may have needed to rely on commercial credit, personal savings, informal borrowing, or delayed investment. The loan therefore functions as a bridge between readiness and execution, allowing the founder to act on the business plan developed through coaching.

4.2 Strategic Implications

The strategic implication is that #SheFUND’s value for product-based businesses should be measured partly in terms of the specific, otherwise difficult-to-fund investments it enables. These include equipment, inventory, packaging, samples, testing, and minimum production runs. For these entrepreneurs, such investments are not secondary expenses. They are preconditions for entering the market.

This means that the programme’s impact should not be assessed only through standard indicators such as revenue growth, repayment performance, or business survival. These indicators remain important, but they may miss the earlier and more specific role of the loan: helping entrepreneurs cross the threshold between a validated idea and a sellable product. In some cases, the most immediate outcome of the loan is not rapid growth, but the ability to produce, package, test, or launch at all.

This finding also suggests that #SheFUND may be especially valuable for founders operating in sectors where early costs are lumpy and unavoidable. Food, fashion, crafts, cosmetics, and other physical-product businesses often require founders to commit resources before they can test the market fully. For these businesses, a small loan can have a disproportionately large effect because it unlocks the first operational step.

At the same time, this insight points to a potential opportunity for programme design. #SheFUND could make the link between loan use and business model more explicit by distinguishing between different types of capital needs. Product-based entrepreneurs may require upfront production capital, while service-based entrepreneurs may need support for visibility, certification, digital tools, or client acquisition. Recognising these differences would allow the programme to better understand what kind of financing gap it is addressing in each case.

5.1 Money that does not compete with the household budget

A second important finding is that the #SheFUND loan does not function only as business capital. For some entrepreneurs, it also functions as protected capital: money that is clearly assigned to the business and therefore does not have to compete, either financially or emotionally, with the household budget.

This distinction is important because some founders are not only entrepreneurs. They are also primary caregivers, sole earners, or women carrying significant family and domestic responsibilities alongside their business. In these circumstances, business investment is rarely a neutral financial decision. Every expense can feel as if it is being taken away from rent, electricity, food, children, or other household needs.

The loan helps reduce this tension by creating a boundary between business money and household money. Because the loan is explicitly intended for the business, and because it is repaid through a predictable schedule, it becomes easier for founders to treat the money as legitimate business capital rather than as personal savings diverted away from the family.

In this sense, the loan does more than provide liquidity. It protects the entrepreneur’s ability to invest. It allows business expenses to be framed as planned, justified, and separate from everyday household survival. This separation is especially valuable for founders who would otherwise hesitate to spend money on the business, even when the investment is necessary.

Two of the three funded entrepreneurs in this study, both of whom run their businesses largely alone, described this dynamic in similar terms. Their accounts show that the value of the loan lies not only in the amount received, but also in the way the money is separated from everyday household finances.

One participant explained that the loan made it possible to buy necessary business inputs without feeling that she was putting her personal budget at risk:

“It’s not a present, because you have to pay back. But it’s a nice moment. You can order those things without sacrificing your own... I found it really nice, just being able to say, okay, I can buy those stickers and not cry about it, and I’m not going to have money to pay my electricity this month because I bought that.”

This quote captures a type of financial pressure that is easy to overlook. The issue is not only whether the entrepreneur can afford a business purchase in absolute terms. It is whether she can justify spending money on the business when the same money could also be used to support the household.

For small businesses, these purchases are often necessary but emotionally difficult. Packaging, labels, materials, ingredients, tools, or small pieces of equipment may not appear large from the outside. Yet for a founder with limited disposable income, each purchase can trigger hesitation. The question becomes not only “Is this good for the business?” but also “Can I afford to take this risk away from my family?”

The loan reduces this burden by making the investment feel authorised. It gives the entrepreneur permission to buy what the business needs without experiencing the same level of guilt or fear that might come from using personal or household funds. In this way, the loan creates emotional space as well as financial space.

5.2 Predictable Repayment makes investments manageable

Another explained that the loan’s repayment structure, spread over monthly instalments rather than a single lump sum, was itself what made the investment feasible:

“It’s easier for me to pay back that amount monthly and being able to develop my product than not having, for example, already ten or twenty thousand euros that you have to give upfront yourself.”

This points to a second mechanism through which the loan functions as protected capital. It does not simply provide a fixed amount of money. It transforms a large upfront investment into a manageable monthly commitment.

For founders without substantial savings, this matters greatly. Many business expenses arrive before revenue is generated, but household income is often managed month by month. The loan reduces this mismatch. Instead of needing to accumulate a large sum before investing, the entrepreneur can act when the business needs it and repay gradually over time.

This structure can make the difference between postponing investment indefinitely and moving forward. It allows entrepreneurs to develop their product without waiting until they have personally saved enough to cover the full cost. The loan therefore supports not only access to capital, but also timing: it allows investment to happen when it is needed.

The interviews also suggest that the loan reduces a specific form of emotional friction: the guilt associated with spending on the business when household needs remain present. This is particularly relevant for founders who are responsible for others, or who do not have a separate financial cushion from which to invest.

In these cases, hesitation is not a sign of lack of ambition or lack of confidence. It reflects the real pressure of managing scarce resources across business and family life. A founder may believe in her business and still feel unable to spend money on it if that spending appears to threaten household stability.

The loan changes this calculation. Because the money is earmarked for business development, it helps the entrepreneur separate investment from sacrifice. The decision becomes less emotionally charged. The founder is not simply taking money from the household; she is using dedicated capital for a defined business purpose.

This is why the idea of protected capital is important. The protection is not only financial. It is also psychological. The loan protects the entrepreneur from having to constantly justify each business expense against immediate family needs.

5.3 Strategic Implications

This effect is rarely named in funding programme design, yet it directly addresses a source of financial tension that many entrepreneurs experience, particularly women who are also caregivers, sole earners, or responsible for household stability.

For #SheFUND, this means that the loan should not be understood only as access to finance in a technical sense. It also acts as ring-fenced capital. It protects the business investment from being constantly compared with household needs, and it protects the entrepreneur from the emotional burden of choosing between business development and family responsibilities.

Making this dimension explicit could strengthen how #SheFUND communicates the purpose of the loan. Rather than presenting it only as money to start or grow a business, the programme could also describe it as dedicated business capital that gives founders the space to invest without undermining their household budget.

This insight also has implications for impact assessment. The benefit of the loan may not appear immediately in revenue growth or profit figures. Its first effect may be that the entrepreneur finally feels able to purchase equipment, packaging, materials, or stock without fear of compromising personal financial stability.

In other words, the loan may first produce confidence to invest before it produces measurable business growth. This confidence is not abstract. It is tied to the practical and emotional relief of knowing that the money has a defined purpose, a repayment plan, and a boundary around it.

6.1 The only viable channel, not the cheapest one

#SheFUND loan fills a financing access gap that many entrepreneurs would otherwise struggle to overcome. None of the funded entrepreneurs interviewed described #SheFUND as one financing option among several available alternatives. They did not present it as the cheapest loan, the most convenient loan, or the most attractive loan in a competitive market of financing options. Rather, they described it as the only realistic route through which they could access formal capital for their business.

This distinction is important. For many early-stage entrepreneurs, and particularly for migrant women, the problem is not only the cost of credit. It is whether credit is accessible at all. Conventional lenders often require an established financial history, collateral, stable income, administrative familiarity, and confidence navigating the local financial system. For entrepreneurs who are new to Belgium, or who do not yet have a long credit history or professional network, these requirements can make formal financing difficult to access in practice.

In this context, the value of #SheFUND lies not only in the loan amount or repayment terms. Its value lies in opening a door that would otherwise remain closed. The loan functions less as a marginal improvement on existing financing options and more as an entry point into formal business financing for founders who are not yet legible to conventional lenders.

None of the funded entrepreneurs interviewed described #SheFUND as one financing option among several they were weighing. This is analytically significant because it shows that the programme is not simply competing with other financial products. It is addressing a more basic problem: the absence of realistic financing alternatives.

One participant made the substitution explicit:

“That’s something I would have to take a loan elsewhere. I can pay it with this kind of funds.”

At first glance, this quote suggests that another loan might have been possible. However, its meaning is broader. The participant presents #SheFUND as the mechanism that allowed her to avoid searching for, negotiating, or depending on another form of credit. The loan gave her access to capital in a context where external financing would otherwise have been more difficult, more expensive, less suitable, or less certain.

For early-stage entrepreneurs, this certainty matters. When a business needs to purchase equipment, samples, packaging, stock, or services, the founder often cannot wait indefinitely while searching for credit. If financing is uncertain, the business decision is delayed. #SheFUND reduces that uncertainty by creating a structured and accessible financing route linked to the coaching and pitching process.

This means that the loan should not be understood only through the language of affordability. Its importance is not simply that it may offer better conditions than another loan. Its importance is that, for some founders, it makes formal financing practically reachable in the first place.

6.2 Credit invisibility and migrant entrepreneurship

The financing gap is especially relevant for migrant women entrepreneurs. Founders who are new to Belgium may have professional experience, education, business ideas, and entrepreneurial motivation, but still lack the local financial history that lenders typically use to assess risk. They may not have Belgian credit records, collateral, long-standing banking relationships, or documented business performance in the local market.

This creates a form of credit invisibility. The entrepreneur may be capable and committed, but the formal financial system has limited evidence through which to recognise her as fundable. In such cases, the barrier is not necessarily the quality of the business idea. It is the mismatch between what the entrepreneur can offer and what conventional lenders are able or willing to evaluate.

#SheFUND helps reduce this mismatch. Through its connection with #SheDIDIT, coaching, application preparation, and pitching, the programme creates an alternative pathway for assessing readiness. It allows entrepreneurs to demonstrate commitment, preparation, and business potential in ways that are not limited to collateral, credit history, or pre-existing financial records.

This is why the loan can be particularly valuable even when the amount is modest. For founders who are not yet recognised by mainstream lenders, access to any formal and structured financing can be a critical step. It validates the business as investable and gives the entrepreneur the means to move from planning to execution.

6.3 Networks as part of Financial Access

The interviews also show that access to finance is closely linked to access to networks. One participant described arriving in Belgium without a professional or entrepreneurial network:

“As a lawyer, as an expat here in Brussels, I didn’t have any network... I was just looking for places where I could learn about business, how I could actually launch this.”

This shows that financial exclusion is not only about banks. It is also about not knowing where to go, whom to ask, which institutions to trust, and how to enter the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A lack of network can make the entire business environment harder to navigate, including financing opportunities.

For entrepreneurs with established local networks, financing information often circulates informally through accountants, peers, mentors, business associations, incubators, banks, or family contacts. For migrant founders without these connections, the absence of a network can limit both knowledge and confidence. They may not know which financing channels exist, which ones are realistic, or how to approach them.

In this sense, #SheFUND does more than provide a loan. It embeds financing within a wider support environment. The programme combines capital with guidance, community, and a trusted organisational relationship. This makes the financing more accessible because it is not encountered as an isolated financial product, but as part of a process the entrepreneur has already entered and learned to navigate.

6.4 Strategic Implications

The strategic implication is that #SheFUND’s impact should be reported not only as the provision of credit, but as the creation of access where access would otherwise be limited or absent. This matters for how the programme explains its value.

If the loan is described only as a financing product, its contribution may appear relatively narrow. It may be evaluated mainly in terms of amount, repayment, interest, or business growth after disbursement. These indicators are useful, but they do not fully capture the access gap that the programme addresses.

For many funded entrepreneurs, the counterfactual is not a cheaper or more expensive commercial loan. The counterfactual is no suitable financing at all, delayed investment, reliance on personal savings, informal borrowing, or postponement of business development. In this light, the loan should be understood as enabling entry into formal financing rather than simply improving the terms of credit.

This also has implications for storytelling and impact measurement. #SheFUND can make explicit that it supports entrepreneurs who may not yet be served by mainstream finance, particularly migrant women, first-time founders, and entrepreneurs without collateral or established local networks. The programme’s value is therefore not only economic, but institutional: it helps founders become visible, credible, and financeable within the local entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Overall, the evidence suggests that #SheFUND fills a financing access gap. It is not merely one loan among many. For some entrepreneurs, it is the first realistic, trusted, and structured channel through which business financing becomes possible.